EMQX Node Detail

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a sense of comprehensive data ('Everything') but does not disclose behavior on missing nodes, response size, or potential errors. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence ('Everything EMQX knows about one node.') with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately understandable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent), and a well-documented parameter, the description is adequate for a simple one-parameter tool. The main gap is usage guidance, but the overall structured context is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the node parameter is described with precision: exact format, an example, and the source (emqx_cluster_status). This goes well beyond a bare string type, providing clear semantics. The main description adds nothing, but the schema fully compensates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Everything EMQX knows about one node' clearly indicates a read-only retrieval of comprehensive details for a single node. It distinguishes from siblings like emqx_cluster_status by focusing on one node rather than the cluster, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description itself provides no usage guidance, but the parameter schema states the node name must be 'exactly as emqx_cluster_status reports it', implying a prerequisite to first list cluster status. There is no explicit mention of when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.